Why the judges scored it for froch.

I don't think you can underestimate the fact that the guy who is constantly running away, falling to the floor, clinging on and doesn't look like he wants to fight just does not look like the person who's winning.

When there are a lot of debateable rounds where neither fighter does much (and last night had many), that has to impact on the judges.

 

holding and hitting someone on the back of the head does NOT score you points in boxing. how froch got away with that the ENTIRE fight without being penalized is so far beyond me i can't even begin to understand it.

froch landed literally NOTHING of consequence in the fight. i feel like i only saw him hit dirrell 5 times with grazing punches the whole night. he got a few good body punches in there too, but that was literally IT. i wish we could have seen some punch stats because i guarantee froch landed at around 10%, if that. how the **** do you win a fight without hitting someone except for on the back of the head and a few times to the body (mostly on the back, shoulders, and arms mind you)?

that was easily the worst decision i've ever seen. absolutely disgraceful. sure it was a sloppy fight and dirrell was holding a lot, but you can't take a win from someone based on that fact alone. dirrell made froch look like an amateur in there and he still somehow lost on two judges cards by 3 rounds? ****ing insane. the guy landed every single meaningful punch in the fight. he countered the **** out of froch, hurt him, and did everything he needed to to win that fight. i still can't believe that result.

 

Why was Froch having to work that way?

Because Dirrell was holding in place of an actual defence in close.

 

Calm down. Have a cup of tea. Dirrell got punched on the back of the head because he kept ducking to avoid getting hit. The ref warned him to keep his head up four or five times.

 

Dirrell got punched in the back of the head because feeding off scraps on the inside was pretty much the only means by which Froch could land even a glancing blow, so convincingly was he getting beaten to the punch.

 

Spot on.

Why Dirrell chose the biggest fight of his life to make Junior Witter look like Aturo Gatti is beyond me, especially as he easily had the talent to win this fight. In flashes he looked outstanding, but in a very close a difficult to score fight, he didn't do enough, which is the bottom line

 

Froch/Dirrell looked like something from a tough man contest. My freinds and I were laughing our asses off about how sloppy this "world title" fight was. However, we stopped laughing and started getting pretty pissed off when Froch committed his 53rd foul, and the ref still hadn't disqualifed him.

 

People are also failing to realise that Dirrell was guilty of far more illegal moves than Froch - holding is not only a foul, but - as has been said - it can also turn officials against you because it simply looks like you don't want to fight. That's why Froch got away with his moves - because Dirrell was essentially grabbing him at every opportunity I'm certain that the ref became as irritated as everyone else and felt sour towards him, he wanted to officiate a fight, not a hug-contest.

 

Are you honestly attempting to make anyone believe that a boxer is allowed to simply lower his head to below his opponent's waist, making him impossible to hit anywhere other than on the back of his head? Are you contending that the Panamanian referee did not know the rules of boxing, and erred in the consistent warnings and belated point deduction from the American fighter? Do you, sir, in all honesty, wish to employ such transparent and vapid sophistry in a forlorn attempt to avoid the inescapable conclusion that your man, Dirrell, ran and grabbed like a ****in ***** for ten rounds?

 

Unfortunately, the original poster is correct. For the majority of the middle to late rounds, Dirrell would go inside without throwing a punch to get there, and not throwing a punch while he was there. Froch was the only one scoring on the inside when that happened, and the frustrating thing is it wouldn't have happened if Andre didn't keep doing it. By the third time of that sequence happening, I was screaming for Andre not to do it anymore because it should've been clear by that stage that the ref wasn't going to bust Froch for hitting on the break or hitting behind the head and was going to be lenient on infighting.

Not ad******g to what the ref allows (whether it's fair or not) is a mistake typical of a prospect in his first fight in the champ's backyard. Fortunately, it's nothing Dirrell can't learn from and fix.

What's more important (and what I'd say to Andre about it) is that you need a purpose to jump in like that. You've either got to punch on your way in to score before the clinch, land something on the inside before getting out, or punch your way out of the clinch- or what's the point? Andre must've done it at least 30 times but without any offense to justify the tactic.

It was as if the fight was presented like a ham on a silver platter to a starving man, and instead of devouring it whole, he settled for a few nibbles and called it a day. Andre needed to get greedy, to do more than the minimum, to absolutely pile on the points to come home with the title. Go James Toney and ****ing tear up that ham. I hope he considers it a lesson learned, because he's still got plenty of upside on the table if he takes the experience and applies it to future fights. This can be a good case of a loss bringing about more improvement than a win might have, and Dirrell's still got at least two fights left to show it.

 

Firstly, Dirrell is not "my man". I didn't even like the guy's behaviour, and was rooting for Froch until the fight started developing and the biased commentary over here in the UK started getting to my head. Now, both guys fouled a lot, and ducking below the belt isn't something that should be allowed. But the simple fact is that Froch was holding and hitting, hitting on the break and rabbit punching an awful lot, mainly because he was unable to get off on the outside and had to unload at the slightest opportunity out of frustration. He (like Dirrell) should have been penalized.

 

Correct, and Dirrell wasn't really landing as much on the outside as it looked - sometimes a jab falls short and it looks like it's landing even when it clearly is not.

 

They scored it for Froch because he's British and it's in England, you wouldn't want to see a drunken slugfest in the crowd so they gave it to the tomato can. That's the same reason the handpicked a bartender as a referee specialized in warning the opposition while Froch, like Hatton, can awe the crowd in a masterful display of zombie speed combinations to the back of the head. Also like Benn was allowed against McClellan and whoever else got suckered to fight there.